Abstract
This paper considers the nature of a curriculum as presented in formal curriculum documents, and the inherent difficulties of representing formal disciplinary knowledge in a prescription for teaching and learning. The general points are illustrated by examining aspects of a specific example, taken from the chemistry subject content included in the science programmes of study that are part of the National Curriculum in England (an official document published by the UK government). In particular, it is suggested that some statements in the official curriculum document are problematic if we expect a curriculum to represent canonical disciplinary knowledge in an unambiguous and authentic manner. The paper examines the example of the requirement for English school children to be taught that chemical reactions take place in only three different ways (i.e., proton transfer; electron transfer; electron sharing) and considers how this might be interpreted in terms of canonical chemistry and within the wider context of other curriculum statements, in order to make sense of neutralisation and precipitation reactions. It is argued that although target knowledge that is set out as the focus of teaching and learning cannot be identical to disciplinary knowledge, the English National Curriculum offers a representation of chemistry which distorts and confuses canonical ideas. It is suggested that the process of representing the disciplinary knowledge of chemistry as curriculum specifications is worthy of more scholarly attention.
Highlights
This paper examines some of the statements made in the official curriculum document issued by the UK government specifying the chemistry that should be taught in English schools (DFE 2015)
The chemistry education community generally behaves as if we can all agree on what counts as chemical knowledge in order to use that as a referent in constructing curricular models
Chemical knowledge? Again, this wording in the curriculum document (“chemical reactions take place in only three different ways: proton transfer[,] electron transfer[,] electron sharing”) is repeated in the documents setting out the content that must appear in the specifications for the GCSE examinations in combined science (Ofqual 2015a, p. 18) or chemistry (Ofqual 2015b, p. 20)
Summary
This paper examines some of the statements made in the official curriculum document issued by the UK government specifying the chemistry that should be taught in English schools (DFE 2015). Taber in this curriculum document is problematic, and that when some of the different statements are juxtaposed they present a confused specification for the teaching and learning being prescribed. This is presented as an example of the challenge of representing canonical chemistry in the curriculum, especially at school level. There is no attempt to offer a comprehensive account of the chemistry content prescribed in the English curriculum, but rather some specific statements are examined to highlight problematic issues, and so illuminate the challenge of representing disciplinary knowledge in a curriculum
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have